Excellent analysis, Judy. **
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], boyboy_8 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > [snip} > > > > I just found this: > > > > http://tmfree.blogspot.com/2007/06/maharishi-mahesh-yogis-big- lie- > > part-1.html > > > > "The mantras are either names of Vedic/Hindu deities or sounds that > > are closely associated with these deities. The evidence regarding > the > > true nature of the mantras can be found in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's > > own writings. In 1955, prior to coming to the West, three of his > > lectures were included in a book published in India called Beacon > > Light of the Himalayas. In one of these lectures he states the > > following regarding the mantras: > > > > " we find that any sound can serve our purpose of training the > > mind to become sharp. But we do not select any sound like 'mike', > > flower, table, pen, wall etc. because such ordinary sounds can > > do nothing more than merely sharpening the mind; whereas there > > are some special sounds which have the additional efficacy of > > producing vibrations whose effects are found to be congenial > > to our way of life. This is the scientific reason why we do not > > select any word at random. For our practice we select only the > > suitable mantras of personal Gods. Such mantras fetch to us the > > grace of personal Gods and make us happier in every walk of life." > > > > So, we have an early quote from MMY talking about what the mantras > > are. I rest my case. > > I'm not sure your case is quite ready to be > rested yet, however. > > First of all, this is pretty old news, although > it may be new to you. It isn't some big revelation. > The text of the Beacon Light addresses has been > available on the Web since the early '90s. > > Second, note that MMY's phrase is "suitable mantras > of personal gods," not "names of personal gods." I > acknowledged that the bija mantras TM uses are > associated with the deities (and so will TM teachers, > if you ask them). Elsewhere, the bija mantra sounds > are said to be those which are *pleasing to* the > deities (which suggests that the sounds prexisted > the deities). > > Third, MMY was addressing *devout Hindus*, so of > course he would have used their religious terminology > of "personal gods." But elsewhere he's made it clear > that the "deities" are forces or laws of nature, or, > in his rishi-devata-chhandas formulation, *processes > of knowing* (rishi being the Knower and chhandas > being that which is known). > > In other words, in his teaching there are levels of > metaphysical abstraction that apply beyond the more > concrete religious terminology of Hinduism. > > There's an address King Tony gave not long after he > was appointed, I believe, in which he emphasizes > that the "deities" are ultimately elements of > human consciousness rather than divine beings who > exist external to us. > > Most religions have an exoteric and an esoteric > component. The esoteric component tends to be > more metaphysical and abstract, and therefore > more universal than sectarian. You will find more > similarities between the esoteric components of > different religions than their exoteric > counterparts, whose elements are more concrete > and hence more accessible, but which appear to > vary from one religion to the next because > they're more culture specific; the more generic > metaphysical principles underlying them have > taken more specific form in a particular time > and place. > > It's very tempting to me, at any rate, to believe > that the metaphysical systems, the esoteric > components of religions, more closely reflect the > ultimate reality of the universe than their > concrete exoteric expressions. I'm not a religious > believer, but I find the metaphysical abstractions > MMY taught immensely appealing, whereas the exoteric > religions Hinduism comprises appeal to me not at > all. > > And I'm very much inclined to believe that the bija > mantras used in TM are vehicles to access the > ultimate reality in my own consciousness, rather than > to "fetch the grace" of individual deities external > to myself. Or rather, I'm inclined to believe that > these are two different ways of saying the same thing. > > > To your other points, whether we want to say that all gods are > > manifestation of Brahman or not, within both the Jewish and > > Hindu religious systems, they have a life of their own, > > regardless of the labels we attach to them (for origin). That > > the Lord in the OT refers to other gods is of interest and is > > rarely commented on. I see this as an acknowledgement by Him > > that yes, indeed, there are entities that you can contact, > > lower "g" gods, who function at very subtle levels of "life" and > > no, I do not want you (Hebrew people) to contact them. They are > > not for you, so stay away. > > I understand your reasoning, and I'm not a student of > Torah, so I can't comment with any authority. I would > just wonder why, if God is who He is cracked up to be, > there would be lower-"g" gods running around who were > not completely subject to His authority--who were not, > in fact, aspects of Himself. Can they really have > "lives of their own," independently of God, any more > than we humans can? > > Just out of curiosity, have you ever studied Kabbalah? > > Mentally > > entertaining the energy of any other deity other than the system as > > espoused and explained by Moses was and is still forbidden. If God > > wanted the Hebrews to just merely meditate he would have taught a > > less restrictive regime of practices. Judaism is very highly > > restrictive because the path that was laid down for these souls was > > only for them and for no other types. It could only be properly > > lived if lived only in that restrictive, closed way. It is no > > coincidence that so many Jews have flocked to TM (and many other > > Eastern teachings) over the decades. But, that is for another > > discussion. > > Be interested to read about it if you have the time. > > > I do not believe we have to believe in the existence of other gods, > > pagan or however else you term them. The God that revealed Himself > > to these people said He was exclusive and the laws, codes and > > directives were for association with only Him in the way He > > revealed Himself and to no other entity/energy/representation. > > These people were 100% surrounded by pagan relegions and were > > highly influenced by them. They loved spirituality to a level we > > today do not appreciate. Their guidebook was what it was: > > exclusive and prohibitive. > > My only question is whether we really understand > in all cases what exactly was being prohibited. > > Thanks for your comments! >
